government

Marketas a system, no matter what economic theory claims, is not good for all things; especially in the face of corrupt competition. It is the introvert, self-serving assertion of US greed and aggressive multinationals. Tireless planning and powerful policy intervention are needed to correct its imbalances.

Foreigners in modern Europe and America are asylum-seekers, immigrants, minority groups, – they cause crime and trouble. Violence is turned on them just for being different or for not accepting to be dominated – as seen in Algeria, Burundi and Nazi Germany. The asylum -seeker is jobless, homeless and without land on which to live – yet in this modern world. Dutch minister Rita Verdonk dumped them in jail as if criminals, letting 11 of them die in a fire while guards refused to let them out. Italy and Europe dump them when they manage to get into the Mediterranean Sea trying to escape hunger and terror in their homelands.

social political inequality - new international economic order - imbalances

Capital and technology are too often misused against the poor in the world. Between countries and within countries, social political inequality is more often the rule than the exception. NIEO the new international economic order has not removed imbalance between labour and capital, between equality and growth, between efficient management and democratic politics, nor between ethics and greed. Yet so-called experts proclaim advancement to celebrate their paper theories.

Hypocritical calls for Freedom
At first, Ayaan Hirsi Ali a young woman from Somalia won much acclaim from the Dutch society by seeming to articulate some concern for the freedom of Muslim African women, helped by her claim that she had been victim of cruel, female circumcision and forced marriage herself. In an interview for The Independent, she even told John Hari that she was once herself a Muslim fundamentalist, ready to pull the trigger to carry out the fatwa (order to be killed) issued against Salman Rushdie for writing his book – TheSatanic Verses.

Hirsi Ali deliberately chose a vote-sweeping theme that made her attractive to Dutch political parties, and in no time, she became a member of parliament for the Dutch Labour partyPvdA. That she only used this as a stepping stone for her personal ambitions became obvious when she abruptly jumped from that party to the VVDLiberal party at the promise of more prominence in politics. She delved into highly provocative money-making, publicity-generating film that brought her expensive state-paid security protection.

Her various lies became such a dominant topic at the Dutch parliament and so hot that the ruling Balkenende cabinet was sacked as a result. Hirsi Ali soon quit for a seemingly posh job in the background of a George Bush-supporting American political institution, hoping for eventual appointment to a US-sponsored puppet role in Somalia some day. Yet in all these years, without initiating a single legislation in favour of women, she jumped from the very low status of an illegal immigrant to that of a highly paid Dutch politician, costing the tax-payer more than three million euros a year.

In short, Hirsi Ali manipulated Dutch politics into giving her at public expense the freedom she promised but never delivered for others to enjoy. Clearly, Ayaan Ali’s notion of freedom does not rhyme with what serious people really mean in public discussion of women’s freedom nor religious freedom. That she is deceptive is evident in her own admission to having lied to the state, for which she had to quit parliament, and had to apologise publicly. Ayaan’s lies got bungled in declarations by VVD Immigration minister Rita Verdonk to parliament, costing this minister her job. Her refusal to resign forced the whole Balkenendecabinet to resign from government.

Rita Verdonk‘s own case started with her infilterating a Dutch student movement for the rights of prisoners, mingling in with the student movement when they were demonstrating in front of a prison against unfair treatment of prisoners. Hardly three weeks later, she cashed in on her effort by accepting appointment as directorof that very prison. Like Hirsi Ali, she later found her way into the Dutch VVD Liberal party, later becoming minister of immigration, continually provoking foreigners living in the Netherlands, and having to repeatedly apoligise to Dutch parliament for lying.

As minister, Rita Verdonk introduced the imprisonment of assylum seekers, seized every opportunity to stigmatise immigrants and Muslims, and forced the training of immigrants in so-called in-burgering or citizen-forming for skills often not possessed by many Dutch natives. When eleven asylum seekers died in a fire in the prison-boat where she locked them in, without knowing the facts, she lied to parliament that the prison staff had acted absolutely correctly, and that the imprisoned asylum seekers had deliberately started the fire.

Rita Verdonk also worked herself into getting state security protection, eventually quit the VVD party and set up her own political party without a clear plan nor mission but one widely understood to discriminate against foreigners and to polarise society with publicity-seeking comments. Although her own fore-fathers could have been immigrants in the Netherlands, Rita Verdonk, like Hirsi Ali, is in fact out to politically inhibit thefreedom of a section of society – immigrants especially Muslims, Turks, Moroccans, Africans and Antilleans.

Like the two above-mentioned pretending defenders of freedom, the loud-mouthed young man, Geert Wilders, joined the Dutch VVD Liberal party and became a member of parliament by provoking Muslims and foreigners, thereby also getting expensive state security protection, and a higher income than his meagre education could otherwise justify. He also never produced a single useful legislation on freedom nor on anything, and soon quit the VVD to set up a one-man political party with the grossly misleading name PVV party for the freedom.

Wilders easily benefitted from extremist nationalist voters, and relies on the uncertainties of bigger parties in the long inter-party negotiations that always follow Dutch elections when every parliamentary seat desperately counts. Like Hirsi Ali and Rita Verdonk, Geert Wilders has been actively seeking to politically inhibit the freedom of a section of society, even daunting a provocative film (Fitma) to get publicity.

These three political opportunists – Hirsi Ali Rita Verdonk and Geert Wilders show how attractive freedom is as a political and social theme, but also how it can be misused to bring lethargy rather than energy to the specific public issues for which the common man seeks freedom. These are cases of speaking of freedom to inhibit freedom.

At the international level, the world still remembers vividly, how George Bush started with lies about introducing freedom to Iraq, and deceitfully claimed nuclear threats to American freedom; how he managed to commandeer all of the political, military and media power resources of the USA, and eventually brain-wash NATO nations and other major western countries to join in destroying the democratically elected government of Afghanistan, and to bomb away Iraqi infrastructure and social system.

More than five years later, despite having caught and hanged Saddam Hussein, and at the cost of death to well over four thousand American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the senseless war kept pounding on Iraqi people, consuming so much petroleum fuel that world oil prices continued to hit new records. In the very real sense of higher than necessary cost of energy, the whole world was paying for George Bush’s folly, even if the media continued to exaggerate the impact of the growth of China and India as the sole reasons for the high fuel cost.

These examples of Bush, HirshiAli, Rita Verdonkand Geert Wilders illustrate the high impact that misuse of manipulative shouts about freedom can have on the whole world. What in this popular concept called freedom gives it the energy to so drastically command huge public impact; an impact way beyond the simple dictionary meaning of the word freedom?

Freedom – Its Dictionary Meaning and Frisian origin
According to the Oxford Popular English Dictionary, freedom is the condition of personal liberty to act at own discretion without the constraint of necessity; to reject dogma or other belief; to not be forced to conform; to express own opinions or not be forced to conceal own opinions; to love at own discretion without the forbidding influence of custom; to trade privately, without import- or regulatory restrictions; to be unhindered by external rules, to be able to move, work or perform at own pleasure. Free Will is the notion that each human being has the freedom or capacity to act or perform as he may apply his mind and resources to accomplish, without predestination by God nor fate.

The English word free originally meant rejoicing or acting at pleasure. It has an Anglo-Saxon origin in the Germanic word frei which also gave us the term friend. The origin of the word Friend was freond meaning tolove. Free got into Old English through the Old Dutch word vrij which is also the root of the folk name Frisian.

Frisians from pre-Roman times and until now have been a remarkable coastal folk in the Low Countries. Probably the oldest surviving Germanic tribe. Others including Anglo-Saxons and the Franks, were large bands, not tribes. The Frisians still account for thousands of listings of the family name De Vries in Dutch phone directories, which in English became Fritz.

Vrij is also the root of the Dutch term vrijen – to make love or perform a sexual act. In fact, freedom has a very special meaning in Dutch society, even beyond the true comprehension of most non-Dutch people. The special meaning arose from their very peculiar history from ancient times until our modern era (read all about this in Dutch Sense - the uncommon sense ISBN 9080245763. Frisians chose freedom above comfort by settling in the marshy shores of the North Sea, literally amidst the sea-waves feared by others. That kept them at safe distance from the invading Romans for example.

Negative freedom calls for absence of restraint, while positive freedom calls for self-realisation and self-mastery. Frisian freedom helped their folks develop dyking and flood-control skills, navigation and survival skills, plus dredging skills long before other Europeans took to the open seas in noticeable numbers.

The frequency and seriousness with which freedom is raised as an issue especially in Western society, but also in all areas of the world, imply that people envisage much more than the simple dictionary meaning of the word freedom when they agitate for it. Native black Africans were deprived by apartheid South African government of free movement in their own country, forbidden to inter-marry or have any sexual contact with whites, forbidden to vote nor to join unions or political organisations, nor allowed free entry into most public libraries, musea, public transport, beaches, and public buildings, nor allowed to give any witness account that was against white-dominated state interest, not even in own defence, and it was forbidden to receive money from abroad.

The typical view of the South African Boer in 1850 on African freedom was “We Whites allow Black Africans to work for us in exchange for the privilege to live on our land“. Whose land? As to labour freedom, in Belgian king Leopold’s Congo, natives were forced to harvest and deliver quota volumes of rubber and ivory without payment, failure of which was punished by amputating fingers, an arm, leg or ear. Yet many Belgians and other Whites regarded the African to be raw, wild, cruel, blood-thirsty, lazy, superstitious, barbarous, uncivilised, stupid and needy of culture until he called for freedom. The irony is that the White man’s Christianity claims the Blacks of Africa to be descendants of Cham, cursed in the Book of Genesis to become the slaves of slaves.

In raising the British flag or Union Jack in Lokoja, and annexing northern Nigeria in 1900, Frederick Lugardclaimed the right and freedom of the conqueror to rule over and tax the people, remove and appoint local emirs and oba’s or rulers at will, recruit the men for police or military action in the interest of the British monarchy, ostensibly to modernise the region, introduce civilisation and convert the hearthens to Christianity through the Church Missionary Society CMS. By that time, Samuel Ajayi Crowther, a Yoruba had already served as the first black African bishop of the Anglican church.

Kabongo, head of Kenya‘s Kikuyu folk explained the arrival of the White administrator in his part of Africa around 1908:

“He just came one day to tell us that we henceforth had a rose-cheeked White king to rule over us through some government in a town called Nairobi, to whom we and our land now belonged. We told him that from the time of our forefathers we had no king but in fact chose our own council which made our regulations and decided on our communal needs. His reply was that the rules of the White king were now to be our laws, and that we should give our land to the White colonists“.

Is it not an irony that the ‘freedom-loving’ British claim that they brought democracy to this African country?

Almost everyone sees justice in the imprisonment of offending criminals – an action of the state that specifically deprives the offender of freedom. Yet, most of the public still feels a degree of sympathy for prisoners when these demonstrate for freedom from mishandeling, torture, unhealthy or inhuman prison environment. In other words, the public holds to the ethics that in the one hand seeks justice through denial of freedom in specific circumstances, but at the same time disapproves of denial of freedom within some context of the same justice.

What then is this freedom? What gives it so much vibrance in the heart of the public? How does it even drive some into fanatic action, or provide enormous power to some opportunists? Opportunists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Rita Verdonk and Geert Wilders (to name a few Dutch examples) have taken advantage of public endarement to freedom by publicly speaking out ostensibly for freedom, but cashing in high direct rewards from the effort by getting immediately raised to political heights. Yet, these three seem out to curtail the freedom of others – immigrants.

Conceptually, freedom arises as a social issue where or when a field of social tension evolves which threatens the tranquility, happiness or enjoyment of an individual or group or institution such that it is traceable to the attitude or stance of another individual, group or institution. One can compare social freedom to a physical field of zero energy because prior to the incidence of social tension, freedom was evidently not an issue. Yet freedom is essential to human happiness; and happiness consists in inner tranquility and enjoyment.

Freedom only becomes relevant as an issue when there is the risk of disharmony, if bad consequence would follow an action; or to use the terminology of economists, only when there is a social price to be paid otherwise. When victim of lack of freedom, no one fails to recognise its truth, impact and relevance to desired happiness. This holds true whether we talk of freedom for the individual or for a group, or for the state (e.g. in the hands of dictators, despots or external tyrants).

One seeks freedom from another individual (e.g. an intruder, land-lord or parent) or from a group (e.g. a gang, kidnappers, a club or religious sect) or from an institution (e.g. the state, regulatory body, or orthodox establishment) whose instance causes disharmony. Not infrequently, granting us the freedom we desire may cost the other party loss of his or her own freedom in terms of disharmony felt by the other. Hence, freedom calls for checks by moral duty (not casuistry) and responsibility – the obligation to respect the life and property of others, the laws of modesty and jurisprudence or natural justice – adherence to the principles of ethics.

Irrespective of the power hierarchy of the one party over the other, the criterion of ethics and moral responsibility is deemed binding by all people; a fact reflected in calling the issues of freedom a matter of fundamental human rights. Although people recognise the freedom of the state over the individual, even the state is expected to treat the individual with respect and dignity.

This point is basic to the judicial process in civilised society. Injustice, fraud, war and arbitrary law are all abuse of individual and social freedom. In the most unjust war, it is the (national) leaders who are most guilty. In a very real sense, the life of a bird from egg to adulthood and death, may afford it a freedom that many boys cannot imagine – travelling without passport, feeding or playing far and wide, singing or fishing without government rules.

The USA now portrays itself as the land of freedom, enabling it to drain the best brains away from developing countries and others. But then how come this land of freedom has over four million people, (about the total population of Norway) locked away in prisons?

How come nearly 40% of the coloured population in the USA has been in jail or under police detention, when the comparative figure for European Americans is less than 10%?

How come the powerful government of this land of freedom USA does not do enough to reduce its over 35% share of the world output of spam which inhibits the freedom of all internet users? One is well aware that many other countries, and not only the USA should be held accountable for this.

The USA is emphasized here mainly because of its incommensurately high share of abuse of freedom while posing to be land of greatest freedom and police of the world. Without showing the slightest sign of spite, the US government recently preached its freedom in admitting to spying and tapping the phone calls of millions of people in far away countries on all continents, including the political leaders of Europe, foreign companies and private families.

Every man, however stupid, or unthinking dislikes fraud, injustice, being deceived and being tortured. The desire to be freed from these is only human. Freedom of thought is inviolable only when one has enough educationor insight to overcome the overriding influence of business marketing commercials, political propaganda and media manipulation on matters one cannot independently double-check as to their factuality.

Freedom to know is perhaps the greatest freedom; for it is linked to poverty since no literate population is ever really poor and no illiterate population that is not poor.

Poverty is a great curtailment of freedom. The great weight of this fact is most evident in the USA where, according to Kenneth Galbraith, the top 1% of the households own nearly 40% of the nation’s wealth, and the top 20 % own more than 80% in their economy that is driven solely by the motive of the idle class – the top class – to maximise profits.

Government policy or specific public action is directed by the rich and the comfortable, and is often based on theories that conflict with reality but promote the self-interestof the rich, where democracy is an institution of the fortunate.